Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If 'c' is introduced as a name for the piece of clay qua ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in the standard (absolute) sense.

    If 'c' is introduced as a name for the piece of clay qua piece of clay, it rigidly designates that continuant across all worlds where that clay exists.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Names introduced with sortal criteria (qua piece of clay) fix their referent by essential properties, ensuring rigid designation across possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'c' names clay stuff itself rather than a clay-shaped object, it tracks the same material continuant regardless of shape changes or spatial displacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rigid designation requires a de re connection to the referent; sortally-constrained naming secures this by anchoring to the entity's fundamental kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The clay might cease existing in some possible world; unclear whether 'c' rigidly designates the clay or fails to refer, undermining the claim's universality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sortals like 'piece of clay' are conventionally defined; they don't metaphysically determine what property must remain constant across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The same clay stuff could constitute different continuants (a statue vs. a lump); 'qua piece of clay' may underdetermine which continuant 'c' actually designates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    If 'c' names clay stuff itself rather than a clay-shaped object, it tracks the s...Names introduced with sortal criteria (qua piece of clay) fix their referent by ...No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in the standard (absolute) ...Rigid designation requires a de re connection to the referent; sortally-constrai...
    +3 moreShow less
    Sortals like 'piece of clay' are conventionally defined; they don't metaphysical...The clay might cease existing in some possible world; unclear whether 'c' rigidl...The same clay stuff could constitute different continuants (a statue vs. a lump)...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit